The chief justice of the United States believes the entire Supreme Court should decide the term’s most important case.

His arguments, it seems clear, are unassailable.

John G. Roberts, giving his annual address on the state of the judiciary on Saturday, spoke to a budding controversy – or at least what some would like to turn into a controversy – over whether two of the associate justices should recuse themselves from deciding the constitutionality of the 2010 health care overhaul. The law, often called Obamacare, has been challenged on the grounds that Congress overstepped its authority, specifically by requiring that nearly all citizens either have health insurance or face a penalty.

A chorus of left-leaning activists wants Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself because of work his wife did for groups opposed to the law. On the other side, some shouters on the right feel that Justice Elena Kagan should not be a part of the decision because of her possible involvement during her time as solicitor general.

Neither is a clear-cut conflict of interest. Neither comes close to crossing that threshold.

The high court’s ruling on Obamacare will most likely come at the end of its term, in June, meaning that it will rule just months before the November presidential election. No matter what the court decides — and the possibilities are many — its decision will doubtless galvanize forces from across the political spectrum. As such, it ought to be the full complement of justices to make the decision, if at all possible.

And it is possible. Even preferable.

By definition, no one can decide for a member of the Supreme Court. The justices have no judges, no superiors, no co-equals. They alone decide if they need to recuse themselves. And they should decide – all of them if at all possible – the constitutionality of the cases that come before them.